The Spanish Journal of Psychology (2016), 19, e3, 1–11.

© Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid

doi:10.1017/sjp.2016.9

The Validation of a Spanish Version of the

Multidimensional Inventory of Religious/Spiritual
Well-Being in Mexican College Students

Daniela Berger1, Andreas Fink1, Maria Margarita Perez Gomez2, Andrew Lewis3 and
Human-Friedrich Unterrainer1
1 University of Graz (Austria)
2 Universidad Jesuita de Guadalajara (Mexico)
3 Deakin University (Australia)

Abstract.  After the Multidimensional Inventory for Religious/Spiritual Well-Being (MI-RSWB) was validated as a reli-
able instrument for the Western European context it is primarily intended in this study to translate the measure into
Spanish and adapt it for the Mexican culture. Furthermore we investigate whether spirituality/religiosity has a similar
impact on indicators of personality and subjective well-being in Mexico as it does in samples drawn from Western
European cultures. 190 students (99 females) from public and private universities in Guadalajara, all Mexican citizens,
were involved in this study. We found strong evidential support for the six factor solution of the Original MI-RSWB in
this Mexican population. By mirroring previous research the measure showed a highly satisfying internal consistency
(α = .91 for the total score and .75 or higher for all six sub dimensions). Furthermore the total RSWB score was observed
to be related with Eysenck’s personality dimensions Extraversion (r = .24, p < .01), and Psychoticism (r = –.28, p < .001),
although not with Neuroticism. There was also a positive correlation with Sense of Coherence (r = .31, p < .001). In con-
clusion, the dimensionality of RSWB and its associations with personality and subjective well-being was well supported
in this first application within a Mexican cultural context.

Received 26 February 2015; Revised 5 August 2015; Accepted 6 August 2015

Keywords: personality factors, religion, spirituality, psychological well-being, test adaptation.

Religion and spirituality are a universal feature of
human culture while their expression differs in almost
every culture (Emmons & Paloutzian, 2003). Spirituality
has been described as “a basic or inherent quality in all
humans that involves a belief in something greater than
the self and a faith that positively affirms life” (Miller,
1995, p. 257); this is especially pertinent for the field
of psychology. Furthermore, a distinction is often
drawn between religion and spirituality. In this view,
spirituality is the lived experience of religion within a
specific religious tradition, or indeed beyond the ambit
of traditional religion (Nelson, 2009). However, a
clear definition of religion and spirituality and therefor
also a clear distinction is still missing in the literature.
In most cases religiosity has been discussed as being
rather linked to traditions and institutions, whereas
spirituality is often described as a more individualistic
kind of worldview (Pargament, 1999). Moreover, there
has been substantial critique by Koenig (2008) on
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Human-Friedrich Unterrainer. Center for Integrative Addicition
Research (CIAR), Grüner Kreis Society. Rudolfsplatz 9. 1010 Vienna
(Austria).
E-mail: human.unterrainer@uni-graz.at
religiosity/spirituality related research in mental
health for confounding parameters of spirituality with
parameters of psychological well-being. As noted by
Zwingmann, Müller, Körber and Murken (2008), cul-
tural background plays an important role with respect
to the potential link between religiosity/spirituality
and health.
This paper investigates the application of the
Multidimensional Inventory for Religious/Spiritual
Well-Being (MI-RSWB) – which was developed in a
Western European context – within a Mexican cul-
tural context. In Mexican culture the Catholic Church
plays a leading role in society, politics and in family
life. Between 89% and 95% of the Mexicans consider
themselves Catholic (Floyd, 1996). According to figures
released in 2010 by the International Institute of Statistics
and Geographics (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y
Geografía [INEGI], 2013) 89% of the Mexican popu-
lation identified themselves as members of the Catholic
Church. The Mexican people’s enduring bond to the
Catholic Church has its roots within Mexican history
(Floyd, 1996) and the Catholic Church continues to
be a strong social and political influence. In effect,
Catholicism practiced in Mexico cannot be seen as
analogous to European Catholicism. Rather, it can be

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid, on 30 Nov 2020 at 15:25:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.9
 2  H.-F. Unterrainer et al.
regarded as the convergence of disparate forms
of faith which permitted the oppressed, indigenous
people of Mexico to continue to express their tradi-
tional rites and practices, despite their subjugation to
a foreign religious world (Bernecker, Braig, Hölz, &
Zimmermann, 2004). Thus, different indigenous tradi-
tions and beliefs, based on Mexicans’ cultural history,
became integrated with European Catholicism. A good
example is the Aztec dances on the celebration day of
Mexico’s indigenous saint, the Virgin of Guadalupe, or
the colourful and cheerful parades on All Souls’ Day.
Given we know that there are major social and cultural
determinates of health, an investigation of religious
and spiritual aspects of health and mental health need
to be examined across cultures.
This is particularly the case given that the salu-
togenetic influence of religiosity/spirituality on psy-
chological well-being is increasingly acknowledged
(Mayoral Sánchez, Laca Arocena, & Mejías Ceballos,
2010; Miller & Thoresen, 2003; Smith, McCullough, &
Poll, 2003). Saroglou (2002) reports a positive corre-
lation between different aspects of religiosity and the
“Big Five” personality dimensions “Extraversion”,
“Agreeableness” and “Conscientiousness (McCrae &
Costa, 1985). Further, it was reported in Eysenck (1998)
that individuals who are high in “Religiosity” are
significantly more likely to be low in “Psychoticism”.
The concept of “Spiritual Well-Being” (SWB) was
originally developed by Ellison and Paloutzian (Ellison,
1983) and has since then become well established,
especially in the Anglo-American research context
(Unterrainer, Nelson, Collicutt, & Fink, 2012). SWB
was found to be positively related with various param-
eters of psychological health or more adequate stress
coping strategies in clinical (McClain, Rosenfeld, &
Breitbart, 2003; Mickley, Soeken, & Belcher, 1992) as
well as nonclinical samples (Fehring, Brennan, &
Keller, 1987). Based on this previous work, the con-
cept of Religious/Spiritual Well-Being (RSWB) was
further developed by an interdisciplinary clinical
research group at the University Clinic in Graz, Austria,
with the aim of developing a multidimensional alter-
native to the two-dimensional SWB-scale (existential vs.
religious well-being). The total MI-RSWB score com-
prises six sub-dimensions, whereby existential (or
immanent) well-being is measured by the scales “Hope
Immanent”, “Forgiveness” and “Experiences of Sense
and Meaning”. On the other hand “General Religiosity”,
“Hope Transcendent” and “Connectedness” repre-
sent the religious/spiritual (or transcendent) area
of perception. Consequently, a global definition for
the total RSWB can be given as “the ability to experi-
ence and integrate meaning and purpose in exis-
tence through a connectedness with self, others or a
power greater than oneself” (Unterrainer, Ladenhauf,
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid, on 30 Nov 2020 at 15:25:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.9
Wallner-Liebmann, & Fink, 2011, p. 117). To date, the
Original Austrian/German version of the MI-RSWB
has been translated and validated in many languages,
such as English (Unterrainer et al., 2012), Italian (Stefa-
Missagli, Huber, Fink, Sarlo, & Unterrainer, 2014)
and Bosnian (Malinovic, Fink, Lewis, & Unterrainer,
in press). Highly convincing psychometric prop-
erties were consistently observed; Cronbach alpha,
for example, being at least .88 or higher for the total
RSWB score, and .at least .68 or higher for each of the
six sub-dimensions. In line with this research the
current study represents the first data derived from
a Spanish version. We further observed the total
RSWB score as being substantially positively related
with “Extraversion” as well negatively related with
“Neuroticism”. However, there was no correlation
with “Psychoticism” (Unterrainer, Huber, Sorgo, &
Fink, 2011). Furthermore the RSWB total score was
found to be positively related with Big Five personality
dimensions “Extraversion”, “Agreeableness”, “Openness
to Experience”, and “Conscientiousness”. Again there
was a negative correlation with “Neuroticism” (see
Unterrainer, Lewis, & Fink, 2014 for an overview).
Research Aims
The primary study objective is the adaptation of the
MI-RSWB into the Mexican dialect of Spanish and the
Mexican cultural context. Furthermore, by adminis-
tering the newly developed Mexican-Spanish version
of the MI-RSWB on Mexican college students it was our
intention to examine the relation between dimensions
of RSWB, personality and subjective well-being.
Methods
Participants and Procedure
This study is based on a convenience sample of college
students from different universities of Guadalajara.
Initially, we had a total of 209 subjects who we evalu-
ated for suitability. We excluded 4 people who reported
a non-active student status, 1 whose nationality was
not Mexican. Furthermore 14 students were excluded
for non-completion of the questionnaire. The partici-
pants were recruited from the beginning of April until
the end of May 2012. In total 190 students from six
universities were enrolled for this study. There were
several inclusion criteria such as Mexican nationality,
Spanish as mother language and an active student
status at a Mexican private or public university. The
students (99 female/91 male) aged between 17 and
45 years (M = 23.52, SD = 4.91) were recruited from
the public (40%) and private (60%) universities of
Guadalajara, Mexico. 145 (76%) of the participants con-
sidered themselves Catholic, 2 (1%) Jewish, 5 (3%)

Protestants, 13 (7%) belonged to another religious com-
munity and 25 (13%) were not affiliated with any reli-
gious community. 166 (87%) of the respondents were
single, 22 (12%) married and 2 (1%) did not specify
their relationship status. The participants were tested
individually or in small groups at the ITESO University
of Tlaquepaque, Guadalajara, a private institution run
by the Jesuits.
Subjects were recruited by the first author soliciting
students on various university-campuses. An informa-
tion sheet explaining the aim of the study and the link
to the online survey was handed out to the students.
Most of the students were enrolled in psychology
courses. In some cases the participants came from
other fields of study, such as philosophy or educa-
tional sciences. At the beginning of the survey there
was a separate instruction (see Appendix). The time
needed to fill in the questionnaire was approximately
45 minutes. There was no time limit but the online
survey shut down automatically after 10 minutes
without any response. Ethical approval was granted
by the Ethics Committee of the University of Graz,
Austria. A further Mexican institutional review board
approval was not needed.
Measures
A Mexican-Spanish translation of the Multidimensional
Inventory of Religious/Spiritual Well-Being (MI-RSWB;
Unterrainer et al., 2012) was undertaken. In keeping
with the Austrian-German original, the Mexican-Spanish
version consists of 48 items and six subscales (“Hope
Immanent”, “Forgiveness”, “Experiences of Sense and
Meaning”, “Hope Transcendent”, “General Religiosity”
and “Connectedness”) with eight items each. The items
are answered on a six point likert scale from 1 (totally
disagree) to 6 (totally agree).
As a first step of the translation process, each of the
48 items were carefully translated using the Committee
translation method (Harkness & Shoua-Glusberg, 1998)
from the original German version of the scale as well
as from the English version with the support of several
Mexican native speakers with full command of English
language. As a result 39 items were accepted as being
fully equivalent. For the remaining 9 items different
translations were discussed and finally one taken over
because of more clear and explicit wording. Some
slight changes suggested only by both Mexican trans-
lators were incorporated to the new Mexican-Spanish
version. In addition a back-translation was completed
from Spanish to English by an independent profes-
sional translator with no prior knowledge of the orig-
inal version (e.g., Cha, Kim, & Erlen, 2007; Mayoral
Sánchez et al., 2010; van de Vijver & Hambleton, 1996).
The re-translated version showed a high degree of
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid, on 30 Nov 2020 at 15:25:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.9
Spiritual Well-Being in Mexican College Students  3
similarity to the source English version. Discrepancies
were discussed and finally the translation was rated by
an independent Mexican colleague. According to van
de Vijver and Hambleton (1996), there are three types
of biases that occur when it comes to cross-cultural
translation. The first one mentioned as “construct bias”
might occur when the construct underlying an instru-
ment shows non-negligible differences across cultures.
In our case a successful avoidance of ethnocentric ten-
dencies was gained by employing a multicultural,
multilingual team with an expertise in the construct
under study. The second type is named as “method
bias”, a generic term for validity-threatening factors
related to instrument administration, e.g. social desir-
ability. According to Lucio, Reyes-Lagunes and Scott
(1994) there is a need within Mexican culture to project
a good impression or positive image. To avoid this
problem a high degree of anonymity was provided
during the examination by conducting the study
online. To avoid communication problems between
the administrator and the test subjects, an information
sheet with detailed instructions was handed out to the
participants. The last source of anomalies in instrument
translations mentioned by van de Vijver and Hambleton
(1996) is the “item bias” or differential item functioning.
It refers to instrument anomalies at the item level such
as poor wording, inappropriateness of item content in a
cultural group, and inaccurate translation. This point
was addressed by collaborating with bilingual and
bicultural and monolingual Mexican colleagues.
The total list of items for the new Mexican-Spanish
version of the scale can be found in the Appendix.
However, in order to elucidate the different sub-
dimensions, the original English marker items are
given as examples: General Religiosity: “My faith gives
me a feeling of security”; Connectedness: “I have expe-
rienced the feeling of being absorbed into something
greater”; Forgiveness: “There are things which I cannot
forgive” (coded reversely); Experiences of Sense and
Meaning: “I have experienced true (authentic) feel-
ings”; Hope Immanent: “I view the future with opti-
mism”; Hope Transcendent: “I often think about the
fact that I will have to leave behind my loved ones”
(coded reversely); (Unterrainer et al., 2012).
The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (PEN-scale)
Is a reliable measure of the three personality dimensions
“Psychoticism”, “Extraversion”, and “Neuroticism”.
The three psychometric scales (P, E and N) are based
on a biological theory of personality (Barrett, Petrides,
Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1998). The “Psychotic” personality
can be described as: solitary, troublesome, cruel, and
inhumane; “Neuroticism”: anxious, worrying and
moody; and “Extraverted”: sociable, sensation seeking,
 4  H.-F. Unterrainer et al.
carefree and optimistic (Maltby & Day, 2004). The
Instrument has been validated in several cultures. For
our study the Spanish Revised Short Version (EPQ-RA),
consisting of 24 items (α between .78 and .63), was used
(Sandin, Valiente, Chorot, Olmedo, & Santed, 2002). The
items have to be answered on a dichotomous scale
(yes-no).
Sense of Coherence (SOC)
Can be described as “a personal disposition towards per-
ceiving life experiences as understandable, manageable
and meaningful” (Virués-Ortega, Martínez-Martín, del
Barrio, & Lozano, 2007, p. 486). This might also relate to
coping strategies in the face of traumatic events. SOC
has shown itself to be a predictor of self-reported and
objective health in a variety of contexts (Antonovsky,
1987). To gather the general factor, which consists
of the three sub-dimensions “Comprehensibility”
“Manageability” and “Meaningfulness”, the Spanish
version of the “Orientation to Life Questionnaire”
(OLQ-13) with Cronbach’s α of .80, in the original
from Antonovsky (1987), was used (Virués-Ortega et al.,
2007). The items have to be answered on a seven
point likert scale (ranging from “very often” to “seldom
or never”).
The Structure-of-Religiosity-Test (S-R-T)
Is an instrument designed for the multidimensional
assessment of the “Centrality” (Intensity) as well as
a variety of manifestations of religiosity (Huber &
Huber, 2012). In this study we exclusively applied the
“Centrality” scale (“C” scale) which refers to content
of religiosity such as “Cognitive interest”, “Ideology”,
“Prayer”, “Experiences” and “Church attendance”.
The “C” scale consists of 10 items and can be used to
differentiate between highly religious, religious and
non-religious individuals. The scale shows a highly con-
vincing internal consistency of Cronbach alpha = .94.
The items have to be answered on a six point likert
scale (ranging from “never” to “very often” and “abso-
lutely nothing” to “very much”, respectively).
Table 1. Six factor solution for the MI-RSWB Spanish version
Eigenvalue
Hope Immanent 9.318
General Religiosity 6.385
Forgiveness 4.872
Connectedness 3.030
Hope Transcendent 3.014
Sense and Meaning 1.692
Notes: PCA Factor analysis with VARIMAX rotation (n = 190).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid, on 30 Nov 2020 at 15:25:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.9
Furthermore the participants had to respond to two
single items “Intensity of Religiosity” (IOR) and
“Intensity of Spirituality” (IOS) - on a four-point likert
scale from not religious/spiritual to very religious/spiri-
tual. Sociodemographic variables such as sex, age, reli-
gious affiliation and relationship status were assessed
by means of a purposely designed questionnaire.
Statistical analysis
In order to gain initial scale characteristics for a Spanish
version of the MI-RSWB, exploratory factor analysis
(principal component analysis (PCA) with varimaxro-
tation)) and reliability analysis were conducted. The
internal consistency of the factors is calculated using
Cronbach’s alpha. Furthermore, Pearson`s correla-
tion statistics was performed to test the relationships
between the RSWB dimensions, personality factors
and subjective well-being; α-level of significance is
set to .05.
Results
As a first step, in order to investigate the psychomet-
ric properties of the newly developed Mexican-
Spanish Version of the Multidimensional Inventory for
Religious/Spiritual Well-Being (MI-RSWB-MS), factor
analysis was conducted. As the prerequisites for a
factor analysis with KMO of .89 and Bartlett’s Test of
Sphericity with χ2(1128)= 5677.57, p < .001, were ful-
filled, a PCA factor analysis with varimaxrotation
(limiting the factors to be extracted to six, based on
theoretical considerations) showed a six-factor solu-
tion accounting for 58.98% of the variance. As
revealed in Table 1 the strongest factor (eigenvalue:
9.32; 19.41% explained variance) was “Hope Immanent”,
followed by “General Religiosity” (eigenvalue: 6.39;
13.30% explained variance), “Forgiveness” (eigenvalue:
4.87; 10.15% explained variance), “Connectedness”
(eigenvalue: 3.03; 6.31% explained variance), “Hope
Transcendent” (eigenvalue: 3.01; 6.28% explained
variance) and “Experiences of Sense and Meaning”
(eigenvalue: 1.69; 3.52% explained variance).
% of Varience Cumulated %
19.41 19.41
13.30 32.71
10.15 42.863
6.31 49.18
6.28 55.45
3.52 58.98
 Spiritual Well-Being in Mexican College Students  5

As shown in Table 2, all of the MI-RSWB-MS sub-
dimensions as well as the total score, turned out to be
normally distributed with respect to their skewness and
kurtosis, except for “Experiences of Sense and Meaning”.
However, by means of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, we
identified two more scales that displayed deviations
from normality. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test revealed
“Forgiveness”, “Experiences of Sense and Meaning” and
the total RSWB score to deviate from the normal
distribution (refer to Table 2). In line with the Austrian-
German and English versions of the MI-RSWB, these
dimensions tend to be negatively skewed due to a
preference of respondents agreeing to these items.
Furthermore, as revealed in Table 2, women scored
higher than men for the total amount of RSWB (p < .01)
as well as for “General Religiosity” (p < .01) the
“Forgiveness” dimension (p < .01). These findings mirror
results, which have been reported for the English as well
as for the original Austrian-German version of the scale
(Unterrainer et al., 2012; Unterrainer & Fink, 2013).
As depicted in Table 3, the psychometric quality (i.e.
internal consistency) can be considered as “good” for the
dimensions “General Religiosity”, “Forgiveness”, “Hope
Immanent”, “Experiences of Sense and Meaning” and
the total RSWB scale, as well as at least “acceptable” for
the scales “Hope Transcendent” and “Connectedness”.
Thus all of the subscales showed satisfying internal con-
sistencies (Cronbach’s α) similar to the English version of
the MI-RSWB (Unterrainer et al., 2012) as well as to the
Original Austrian-German Version (Unterrainer & Fink,
2013). All subscales of the MI-RSWB-MS correlate
significantly and positively with the total scale and
almost all of them with the subscale for “General
Religiosity” (at least p < .01). There is only one excep-
tion, “Hope Transcendent” (see Table 1). Furthermore,
“General Religiosity” and “Experiences of Sense and
Meaning” showed the strongest correlations with
the MI-RSWB-MS total score.
As revealed in Table 4, dimensions of RSWB turned
out to be significantly correlated with Eysenck’s

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the Mexican Spanish version of the Multidimensional Inventory of Religious/Spiritual Well-Being
(MI-RSWB-MS; n = 190).

Normal
Female (n = 99) Male (n = 91) Total (n = 190) distribution#

M SD M SD M SD min max FGender Zskewness Zcurtosis

GR 33.38 10.36 28.42 11.81 31 11.33 8 48 1.69** – 2.04 – 2.28 .21
FO 37.21 8.17 33.41 9.02 35.38 8.78 8 48 1.87** – 1.71 – 2.43 .01*
HI 34.37 7.86 33.75 7.65 34.07 7.74 15 48 .36 – 1.26 – 2.04 .10
CO 29.66 7.81 28.13 8.11 28.93 7.98 9 48 .07 – .15 – .15 .39
SM 36.35 8.27 34.41 8.66 35.41 8.49 10 48 .60 5* – .61 .01*
HT 31.15 8.35 30.53 8.19 30.84 8.25 8 48 .17 –.81 – .21 .24
RSWB 202.14 33.42 188.92 32.97 195.81 33.77 121 267 1.20** .85 – 2.57 .02*

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01. GR = General Religiosity; FO = Forgiveness; HI = Hope Immanent; CO = Connectedness;
SM = Experiences of Sense and Meaning; HT = Hope Transcendent; RSWB = Religious/Spiritual Well-Being; M = Mean;
SD = Standard deviation; min = minimum score; max = maximum score; # Kolmogorov-Smirnov-test.

Table 3. Internal consistencies Cronbach’s alpha and inter-correlations between the subscales and the total scale of the MI-RSWB-MS.

Dimensions GR FO HI CO HT SM RSWB

Item n 8 8 8 8 8 8 48
α (MI-RSWB-MS; n = 190) .94 .86 .81 .75 .77 .86 .91
General Religiosity .36*** .51*** .59*** – .18* .57*** .78***
Forgiveness .27*** .11 .40*** .31*** .65***
Hope immanent .45*** –.13 .77*** .74***
Connectedness – .17* .62*** .68***
Hope Transcendent – .20** .16*
Experiences of sense and meaning .80***
Total: Religious/Spiritual Well Being

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; GR = General Religiosity; FO = Forgiveness; HI = Hope Immanent; CO = Connectedness;
SM = Experiences of Sense and Meaning; HT = Hope Transcendent; RSWB = Religious/Spiritual Well-Being.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid, on 30 Nov 2020 at 15:25:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.9
 6  H.-F. Unterrainer et al.

personality dimensions “Extraversion” (p < .01) and
“Psychoticism” (p < .01), as well as with “Sense of
Coherence” (p < .001) and “Centrality of Religion”
(p < .001). There was no significant correlation with
“Neuroticism”. Additionally, “Intensity of Religiosity”
(p < .01) and “Intensity of Spirituality” (p < .001),
were found to be strongly related with the MI-
RSWB-MS scale. In accordance with former research,
“Extraversion” turned out to be substantially corre-
lated with three of the MI-RSWB-MS sub-dimensions,
namely “Hope Immanent” (p < .01), “Forgiveness”
(p < .001) and “Experiences of Sense and Meaning”
(p < .01) as well as with the total RSWB-score (p < .01).
“Neuroticism” did not show significant correlations
with the total score, however it turned out to be
weakly negatively connected with “Hope Transcendent”
(p < .01) and “Forgiveness” (p < .05). “Psychoticism”
was negatively correlated with four of the six sub-
scales: “General Religiosity”, “Forgiveness”, “Hope
Immanent”, “Experiences of Sense and Meaning”
(for all p < .01) and the total score of RSWB (p < .001).
The “Centrality” scale of the Structure-of-
Religiosity-Test (S-R-T) was positively correlated
with all of the MI-RSWB-MS subscales (p < .001)
except for “Hope Transcendent”. In addition, “Sense
of Coherence” showed positive associations with all
of the MI-RSWB-MS sub-dimensions except for
“Connectedness” (at least p < .05). And finally, both
the “Intensity of Spirituality” and the “Intensity of
Religiosity” items turned out to be strongly related
to different facets of the MI-RSWB-MS (see Table 4).
Discussion
In order facilitate cross-cultural research on religion
and spirituality, the Multidimensional Inventory of
Religious/Spiritual Well-Being (MI-RSWB) was trans-
lated into the Spanish language and administered
within a Mexican culture. The original Austrian-German
version of the MI-RSB (Unterrainer, Ladenhauf,
Moazedi, Wallner-Liebmann, & Fink, 2010) had been
developed based on a European religious/spiritual
context and therefore from a scale validation perspec-
tive, it was of particular interest to apply the mea-
sure in a different socio-cultural context. Furthermore
we intended to contribute to this ongoing discussion,
namely how to address both religiosity and spiritu-
ality most adequately, as for instance on the one
hand they have been conceptualized as completely
distinct from each other, while on the other hand it is
argued that it is not possible to investigate the one
without considering the other (Pargament, 1999).
In order to be able to accept equivalence for a trans-
lated or adapted test version the items must have the
same meaning and general wording. Moreover, there
must be corresponding response categories, identical
instructions, similar psychometric properties, and
appropriate norms (van Widenfelt, Treffers, De Beurs,
Siebelink, & Koudijs, 2005). The main result shows
that the psychometric properties of the original
MI-RSWB scale were very well replicated. All RSWB
sub-dimensions, as well as the whole scale, dis-
played a highly satisfying level of internal consis-
tency (see Table 2). Furthermore the new Mexican/
Spanish version of the MI-RSWB meets all the other
criteria, as mentioned above. Gender differences in
RSWB dimensions were found as female respon-
dents scored significantly higher for the RSWB sub-
dimensions “Forgiveness” and “General Religiosity”
as well as for the total MI-RSWB-MS score. This finding
is consistent with the results of previous research
(e.g., Rivera-Ledesma & Montero-López 2007; Saroglou,
2002; Unterrainer et al., 2010).
Based on the fact that only students were investi-
gated, the sample was too homogenous to show any
“Age” effects. Although the students from public and
private universities were fairly equally distributed in

Table 4. Religious/Spiritual Well-Being in relation to personality, subjective well-being and centrality of religiosity/spirituality

n GR FO HI CO SM HT RSWB

Personality Factors
Extraversion 173 .10 .26*** .26** .05 .25** .00 .24**
Neuroticism 173 .01 – .14* – .09 .10 – .04 – .25** – .10
Psychoticism 173 – .35** – .22** – .26** – .10 – .24** .12 – .28***
C-Scale 177 .81*** .34*** .30*** .48*** .37*** – .03 .63***
SOC 181 .15* .27*** .33*** – .05 .19** .29*** .31***
IOR 190 .34*** .20** .12 .26*** .21** – .02 .32***
IOS 190 .37*** .32*** .35*** .42*** .51*** .04 .54***

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p< .001; GR = General Religiosity; FO = Forgiveness; HI = Hope Immanent; CO = Connectedness;
SM = Experiences of Sense and Meaning; HT = Hope Transcendent; RSWB = Religious/Spiritual Well-Being; C-Scale = Centrality
Scale; SOC = Sense of Coherence; IOS = Intensity of Spirituality; IOR = Intensity of Religiosity.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid, on 30 Nov 2020 at 15:25:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.9

the sample, it should be noted that there are very con-
siderable social inequities in Mexico which must also
be taken into account. For instance there was a signifi-
cant, negative correlation between years of schooling
and religious coping (reported by socially isolated
elderly Mexicans). This means that the higher the edu-
cation level, the less religion was used as a coping
strategy (Rivera-Ledesma & Montero-López, 2007).
Regarding personality factors, the expected positive
correlations between the “Extraversion” factor and the
MI-RSWB-MS dimensions were observed (see Table 3).
This finding is consistent with results gathered from
the Austrian-German version of the scale (Unterrainer
et al., 2014). Moreover, Saroglou (2002) also reported a
permanent positive correlation between “Extraversion”
and “Religiosity”. For “Psychoticism” no significant
correlation with the total score of the MI-RSWB scale
was expected in view of the outcome in an Austrian
student sample (Unterrainer, Huber, Sorgo, Collicutt &
Fink, 2011; see also Unterrainer & Lewis, 2014 for an
enhanced discussion). In contrast to this, Saroglou
(2002) reported religion as negatively related with
“Psychoticism”. This finding was supported in the cur-
rent study, since the students who attained a higher
religious/spiritual score turned out to be low on
Psychoticism (see Table 3). “Neuroticism” was shown
to be related negatively but quite weakly with only
two subscales of the MI-RSWB-MS scale. In previous
research employing the Austrian-German MI-RSWB,
no noteworthy relations to the “Neuroticism” scale
could be found. However, this stands a bit in contrast
to another study (Unterrainer et al., 2010), where we
observed RSWB dimensions as being substantially
negatively correlated with “Neuroticism” among the
“Big Five” personality factors. Furthermore Unterrainer
et al. (2010) found the RSWB total score as positively
related with the Big Five personality dimensions
“Extraversion”, “Agreeableness”, “Openness to
Experience”, and “Conscientiousness”, which is in
line with the findings of a significant connection
between increased RSWB and high “Extraversion”
and low “Psychoticism” in the current study.
The high correlation observed between the
“Centrality” scale (“C” scale) and “General Religiosity”
(see Table 3) can be explained with reference to the more
institutionalized concept of the “General Religiosity”
subscale. Furthermore, as assumed, a strong positive
association between “Sense of Coherence” and the
MI-RSWB-MS score was confirmed, which adds sup-
port to the positive connection between religion, spiri-
tuality and various factors of psychological well-being
and subjective well-being (Cornah, 2006). However, it
has to be noted that these findings have also been
heavily criticized as being over-interpreted or even
ideologically driven (Sloan, Baghiella, & Powell, 1999).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid, on 30 Nov 2020 at 15:25:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.9
Spiritual Well-Being in Mexican College Students  7
With respect to the two single items “Intensity of
Religiosity” and “Intensity of Spirituality”, significant
positive correlations with various dimensions of the
MI-RSWB-MS emerged. Notably, the sub-dimension
“Hope Transcendent” continues to be problematic
because it did not exhibit any positive correlation with
the other MI-RSWB-MS sub-dimensions nor with the
MI-RSWB-MS total score (see Table 1). This is consis-
tent with previous studies, as the “Hope Transcendent”
scale has consistently been shown to be the poorest
predictor of the MI-RSWB total score (Unterrainer et al.,
2012). This problem needs to be addressed in future
revisions of the MI-RSWB measure. Nevertheless, the
new Mexican version of the MI-RSWB scale has dis-
played convincing psychometric properties similar to
other scale validations.
However, there are several limitations to be noted
for this study. First of all, our initial results are based
on a rather small, convenient student sample and there
was only one point of measurement. Therefore further
research is needed in order to confirm these initial
results, especially by employing enhanced samples
which are more representative of the general Mexican
population. This concerns, in particular, different age
groups, since RSWB was observed to slightly increase
with age (Unterrainer et al., 2014). As religiosity and
spirituality have been heavily discussed as important
resources for coping with stress or a disease, further
research in clinical surroundings is highly recom-
mended. Additionally, a more qualitatively oriented
approach might be helpful in order to learn more about
distinct belief systems in the Mexican population. So
far, it is concluded that the Mexican-Spanish version of
the MI-RSWB-MS can be regarded as a valid and reli-
able instrument for the multidimensional assessment
of religious/spiritual well-being.
References
Antonovsky A. (1987). Unraveling The mystery of health - how
people manage stress and stay well. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Barrett P. T., Petrides K. V., Eysenck S. B. G., & Eysenck H. J.
(1998). The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: An
examination of the factorial similarity of P, E, N, and L
across 34 countries. Personality and Individual Differences
25, 805–819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869
(98)00026-9
Bernecker W. L., Braig M., Hölz K., & Zimmermann K.
(Ed.), (2004). Mexiko heute: Politik, Wirtschaft, Kultur
[Mexico today: Politics, economy, culture]. Frankfurt am
Main, Germany: Vervuert Verlag.
Cha E. S., Kim K. H., & Erlen J. A. (2007). Translation of
scales in cross-cultural research: Issues and techniques.
Journal of Advanced Nursing Research Methodology, 3,
286–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.
2007.04242.x
 8  H.-F. Unterrainer et al.
Cornah D. (2006). The impact of spirituality on mental health:
A review of the literature. London, UK: Mental Health
Foundation.
Ellison C. W. (1983). Spiritual Well-Being: Conceptualization
and measurement. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 11,
330–340.
Emmons R. A., & Paloutzian R. F. (2003). The psychology of
religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 377–402. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145024
Eysenck M. W. (1998). Personality and the psychology of
religion. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 1, 11–19.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13674679808406493
Fehring R. J., Brennan P. F., & Keller M. L. (1987).
Psychological and spiritual well-being in college students.
Research in nursing & health, 10, 391–398. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/nur.4770100607
Floyd J. C. (1996). A theology of insurrection? Religion and
politics in Mexico. Journal of International Affairs, 50, 142–166.
Harkness J. A., & Schoua-Glusberg A. (1998).
Questionnaires in translation. Eurobarometer. ZUMA-
Nachrichten Spezial, Band 3, 87–122.
Huber S., & Huber O. W. (2012). The Centrality of
Religiosity Scale (CRS). Religions, 3, 710–724. http://
dx.doi.org/10.3390/rel3030710
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI).
(2003). Volumen y porcentaje de la población según profese
alguna religión y tipo de religión, 1950 a 2010 [Volume and
percentage of population who professed a religion and
type of religion, 1950 to 2019]. Retrieved from INGI
Webpage http://www3.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/sisept/
default.aspx?t=mrel01&s=est&c=27645
Koenig H. G. (2008). Concerns about measuring “spirituality”
in research. The Journal of nervous and mental disease,
196, 349–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/NMD.
0b013e31816ff796
Lucio E. G. M., Reyes-Lagunes I., & Scott R. L. (1994).
MMPI-2 for Mexico: translation and adaptation. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 63(1), 105–116. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6301_9
Malinovic A., Fink A., Lewis A. J., & Unterrainer H.-F.
(in press). Dimensions of Religious/Spiritual Well-Being
in relation to personality and stress coping: Initial results
from Bosnian young adults. Journal of Spirituality in
Mental Health.
Maltby J., & Day L. (2004). Should never the twain
meet? Integrating models of religious personality and
religious mental health. Personality and Individual
Differences, 36, 1275–1290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0191-8869(03)00215-0
Mayoral Sánchez E. G., Laca Arocena F. A., & Mejía
Ceballos J. C. (2010). Daily spiritual experience in basques
and mexicans: A quantitative study. Journal of Transpersonal
Research, 2, 10–25.
McCrae R. R., & Costa P. T. (1985). Updating Norman’s
“Adequate Taxonomy”: Intelligence and personality
dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710–721.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.710
McClain C. S., Rosenfeld B., & Breitbart W. (2003). Effect of
spiritual well-being on end-of-life despair in terminally-ill
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid, on 30 Nov 2020 at 15:25:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.9
cancer patients. The Lancet, 361, 1603–1607. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13310-7
Mickley J. R., Soeken K., & Belcher A. (1992). Spiritual
well-being, religiousness and hope among women with
breast cancer. Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 24,
267–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.1992.
tb00732.x
Miller M. A. (1995). Culture, spirituality and, women’s
health. Journal for Obstetric Gynaecological & Neonatal
Nursing, 24, 257–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1552-6909.1995.tb02471.x
Miller W. R., & Thoresen C. E. (2003). Spirituality, religion, and
health: An emerging research field. American psychologist,
58(1), 24–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.24
Nelson J. M. (2009). Psychology, religion and spirituality.
(Chapter 11; pp. 347–390). New York, NY: Springer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-87573-6_11
Pargament K. I. (1999). The psychology of religion and
spirituality? Yes and no. International Journal for the
Psychology of Religion, 9, 3–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15327582ijpr0901_2
Rivera-Ledesma A., & Montero-López M. L. (2007).
Medidas de afrontamiento religioso y espiritualidad en
adultos mayores mexicanos [Measurements of religious
coping and spirituality in older mexican adults]. Salud
Mental, 30, 39–47.
Sandin B., Valiente R. M., Chorot P., Olmedo M., &
Santed M. A. (2002). Versión española del cuestionario
EPQR-Abrievado (EPQR-A) (I): Análisis exploratorio
de la estructura factorial [Spanish version of the Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire-Revised (EPQR-A) (I):
Exploratory factor analysis]. Revista de Psicopatología y
Psicología Clínica, 7, 195–205.
Saroglou V. (2002). Religion and the five factors of
personality: A meta-analytic review. Personality and
Individual Differences, 32, 15–25. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00233-6
Sloan R. P., Bagiella E., & Powell T. (1999). Religion,
spirituality, and medicine. The Lancet, 353, 664–667.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)07376-0
Smith T. B., McCullough M. E., & Poll J. (2003).
Religiousness and depression: Evidence for a main
effect and the moderating influence of stressful life
events. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 614–636. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.614
Stefa-Missaglia S., Huber H. P., Fink A., Sarlo M., &
Unterrainer H. F. (2014). Dimensions of religious/spiritual
well-being, personality & mental health: Initial results
from Italian college students. Archive for the Psychology of
Religion, 36, 368–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15736121-
12341290
Unterrainer H. F., & Fink A. (2013). Das Multidimensionale
Inventar zum religiös-spirituellen Befinden (MI-RSB):
Normwerte für die österreichische Allgemeinbevölkerung
[The Multidimensional Inventory for Religious/Spiritual
Well-Being (MI-RSWB): Norm values for the Austrian
general population]. Diagnostica, 59, 33–44. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000077
Unterrainer H. F., Huber H. P., Sorgo I. M., Collicutt J., &
Fink A. (2011). Dimensions of religious/spiritual
 Spiritual Well-Being in Mexican College Students  9

well-being and schizotypal personality. Personality and
Individual Differences, 51, 360–364. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.007
Unterrainer H. F., Ladenhauf K. H., Moazedi M. L.,
Wallner-Liebmann S. J., & Fink A. (2010). Dimensions
of religious/spiritual well-being and their relation to
personality and psychological well-being. Personality and
Individual Differences, 49, 192–197. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.032
Unterrainer H.-F., Ladenhauf K. H., Wallner-Liebmann S. J., &
Fink A. (2011). Different types of religious/spiritual
well-being in relation to personality and subjective well-
being. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 21,
115–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2011.557003
Unterrainer H. F., & Lewis A. (2014). The Janus face of
Schizotypy: Enhanced spiritual connection or existential
despair?. Psychiatry Research, 220(1), 233–236. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.07.028
Unterrainer H. F., Lewis A. J., & Fink A. (2014). Religious/
spiritual well-being, personality and mental health:
A review of results and conceptual issues. Journal of
Religion and Health, 53, 382–392. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10943-012-9642-5
Unterrainer H. F., Nelson O., Collicutt J., & Fink A. (2012).
The English version of the Multidimensional Inventory for
Religious/Spiritual Well-Being (MI-RSWB-E): First results
from British college students. Religions, 3(1), 588–599.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rel3030588
van Widenfelt B. M., Treffers P. D. A., De Beurs E.,
Siebelink B. M., & Koudijs E. (2005). Translation and
cross-cultural adaptation of assessment instruments used
in psychological research with children and families.
Clinical child and family psychology review, 8, 135–147.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10567-005-4752-1
van de Vijver F., & Hambleton R. K. (1996). Translating
tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1,
89–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.1.2.89
Virués-Ortega J., Martínez-Martín P., del Barrio J. L., &
Lozano L. M. (2007). Validación transcultural de la
escala de sentido de coherencia de Antonovsky
(OLQ-13) en ancianos mayores de 70 años [Cross-
cultural validation of Antonovsky's sense of coherence
scale (OLQ-13) in spanish elders aged 70 years or more].
Medicina Clínica (Barcelona), 128, 486–492. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1157/13100935
Zwingmann C., Müller C., Körber J., & Murken S.
(2008). Religious commitment, religious coping and
anxiety: A study in German patients with breast cancer.
European Journal of Cancer Care, 17, 361–370. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2354.2007.00867.x

Appendix

Instrucción:

Por favor tenga en cuenta lo siguiente mientras contesta esta encuesta:

1. Encontrará muchas preguntas referidas a sus creencias religiosas/espirituales y constantemente se encontrará

con la palabra ‘Dios’.
2. Sus respuestas solo serán utilizadas con fines de investigación y su información permanecerá completamente
anónima.
3. Esta investigación es completamente independiente de cualquier grupo religioso y la información (en ninguno
de los casos) será compartida con dichos grupos.
4. Si se siente incómodo con la utilización del término ‘Dios’, siéntase libre para cambiarlo a un término que usted
encuentre adecuado, como por ejemplo ‘poder supremo’.
5. Es también posible responder el cuestionario aunque usted tenga creencias agnósticas o ateístas – el cuestionario
toma estas creencias en consideración.

Por favor responda rápido e intente no reflexionar mucho en ninguna de las preguntas. Es también importante
responder a todas y cada una de las preguntas; de no responder en su totalidad la encuesta no se podrá evaluar
correctamente.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid, on 30 Nov 2020 at 15:25:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.9
 10  H.-F. Unterrainer et al.

List of Items

Nr. Dim. Item

1 GR Mi Fe me brinda el sentido de seguridad.
7 GR Es posible para mí encontrar satisfacción en conversaciones íntimas con Dios.
13 GR Seré capaz de superar todos los problemas con la ayuda de Dios.
19 GR En ciertos momentos de mi vida, me siento muy cerca de Dios.
25 GR Con la ayuda de Dios, seré feliz de nuevo.
31 GR Sé que Dios es misericordioso.
37 GR Disfruto asistir a eventos religiosos.
43 GR Siento la presencia de Dios en la naturaleza.
2 FO Hay cosas que no puedo perdonar.*
8 FO Hay gente que odio.*
14 FO Hay personas a las que nunca seré capaz de perdonar.*
20 FO Hay ciertas cosas que la gente no debería de perdonar.*
26 FO Si alguien me lastima, normalmente busco venganza.*
32 FO El pensamiento de ver a mis enemigos sufrir me satisface.*
38 FO Hay personas que merecen ser maltratadas.*
44 FO He perdonado a aquellos que me han herido.
3 HI Veo al futuro con optimismo.
9 HI Creo que las cosas mejorarán en el futuro.
15 HI Pienso que mi vida va en la dirección correcta.
21 HI Pienso que tendré más experiencias buenas que malas en el futuro.
27 HI Creo que viviré mi vida en el futuro tal y como la he imaginado.
33 HI Tengo una imagen precisa de cómo debe de ser mi futuro.
39 HI Mi futuro parece ser extremadamente incierto.*
45 HI Creo que el futuro tiene grandes desafíos para mí.
4 CO He tenido la sensación de ser absorbido por algo superior.
10 CO Creo que renaceré después de la muerte.
16 CO Hay personas con las que siento una conexión supernatural.
22 CO He tenido experiencias en las que me he dado cuenta que nada muere en realidad.
28 CO Creo en la existencia de la vida después de la muerte.
34 CO He experimentado cosas que no puedo expresar con palabras.
40 CO He estado en contacto con cosas que irradian una energía sobrenatural.
46 CO Creo que tendré acceso a experiencias en el futuro a las cuales pocas personas tienen acceso.
5 HT Regularmente pienso en el hecho de que tendré que dejar a mis seres queridos (después de la muerte).*
11 HT Haría cualquier cosa por prolongar la vida de los que amo.*
17 HT Es difícil para mí pensar que mis seres queridos un día dejaran de vivir.*
23 HT Tengo mucho miedo de ser olvidado después de mi muerte.*
29 HT Haría cualquier cosa por prolongar mi vida.*
35 HT Tengo miedo de lo que me sucederá después de mi muerte.*
41 HT Toda esperanza se acaba con la muerte.*
47 HT Temo ser culpado por mis errores después de la muerte.*
6 SM He experimentado verdaderos (auténticos) sentimientos
12 SM He sentido afecto profundo.
18 SM He vivido la experiencia de una amistad verdadera.
24 SM Experimento con frecuencia franqueza y honestidad.
30 SM He experimentado cosas que me gustaría experimentar una y otra vez.
36 SM He tenido muchas experiencias que me han afectado profundamente.
42 SM He tenido la experiencia de estar tan involucrado/a en algo, que me olvido de todo lo que me rodea.
48 SM He tenido una o más experiencias en las que el sentido de la vida se me ha mostrado claramente.

Notes: Nr. Item number in the Questionnaire; Dimensions: GR = General Religiosity; FO = Forgiveness; HI = Hope
Immanent; CO = Connectedness; HT = Hope Transcendent; SM = Experiences of Sense and Meaning. likert scale: 1 totally
disagree – 6 totally agree. Items marked with * have be to coded inverse.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid, on 30 Nov 2020 at 15:25:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.9
 Spiritual Well-Being in Mexican College Students  11

Dimensión / Dimension Numero de pregunta / Item number

Religiosidad en General - General Religiosity (GR) 1,7,13,19,25,31,37,43

Perdón - Forgiveness (FO) 2*,8*,14*,20*,26*,32*,38*,44
Esperanza Inmanente - Hope Immanent (HI) 3,9,15,21,27,33,39*,45
Conectividad - Connectedness (CO) 4,10,16,22,28,34,40,46
Esperanza Transcedente - Hope Transcendent (HT) 5*,11*,17*,23*,29*,35*,41*,47*
Experiencias de Razon y Significado - Experiences of Sense and Meaning (SM) 6,12,18,24,30,36,42,48

Notes: * = reverse coded

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid, on 30 Nov 2020 at 15:25:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.9